When you have to rent an apartment to house all of your precious stuff that you don't need right now.

Having too much is using could-be living space to house your junk while people sleep on the street.

Having too much is paying money to house your junk. Money that most go without.

Having too much is having so many clothes that you have to rent an apartment to keep them in while others are naked.
'
Self storage is the epitome of having too much.

8/19/2010 6:06:43 PM

Very well. You do whatever you want, and so will I.

8/19/2010 6:09:13 PM

says every criminal

8/19/2010 6:10:21 PM

or it could be a cheaper alternative to moving to a bigger house
/blanket statements

8/19/2010 6:10:35 PM

^ that's hardly going to satisfy her.

I do know this: I wouldn't do a fucking thing in terms of productivity if I was restricted to austerity.

8/19/2010 6:12:53 PM

How about I start by listing all of the other perfectly legitimate reasons one could have for using a self-storage space:

1) They're moving or otherwise in between homes and can't feasibly drive all their shit around in a u-haul everywhere they go.
2) They are traveling for extended periods of time and have no reason to maintain a permanent dwelling for the time being.
3) You're moving into a smaller place and don't have room for the things you had in your bigger place. Maybe you're trying to figure out what to do with them, how to sell them, whatever, or maybe you just think your situation will be temporary.

If you have a problem with those, you have a problem with people owning anything more than they can carry in a hobo pack.

Then there's the part where your argument -- that storage places would be put to better use as housing -- could just as easily be used for parking lots. "Oh, you need somewhere to put your precious car while you're at work. That parking deck downtown could house a thousand homeless!" (Although, from what I've seen at a lot of parking decks, they already do).

And the fact that self-storage places employ people.

And the fact that whenever you buy something, you are helping to keep an entire chain of people employed -- from the otherwise destitute Chinaman who assembled whatever you bought to the poor guys that dug up the raw materials to the high school kid who worked at the retail place where you bought it.

8/19/2010 6:26:51 PM

Here ya go, mambagrl:



Not featured in this picture are:
-my other motorcycle
-the tandem axle trailer parked in front of the black truck outside
-the '66 Chevy pickup that's torn apart in my grandfather's 2nd workshop, in the middle of restoration.
-the empty rooms--with no homeless people--in the 3BR/2.5 bath house that I live in by myself


I can't wait to get some stability in my life where I'm not spending 50% of my time either deployed or in Arizona on training exercises...then maybe I'll add a boat and a half-share of an airplane to the collection.

I do plan on selling the 3/4-ton, 4x4, V-10 engined Ram you see in the driveway as soon as I finish the '66 pickup, though. You know, in the name of efficiency and all...I don't really need two pickups.

...but I might very well pick up a 3rd motorcycle. ...and I kinda want to sell the S2000 and buy a Porsche--Hondas are just so...merely adequate.

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 6:39 PM. Reason : all paid for by my salary from the most fierce branch of the Imperial War Machine...]

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 6:41 PM. Reason : ...and my ruthless, capitalistic stock trading, often taking advantage of those selling under duress]

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 6:44 PM. Reason : the house was a foreclosure, too, which I still managed to get for nearly 5% under the list price]

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 6:50 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2010 6:37:03 PM

Quote :

"I do know this: I wouldn't do a fucking thing in terms of productivity if I was restricted to austerity."

Then you are a selfish person and a cancer to society.

Quote :

"Here ya go, mambagrl:"

What makes you feel like you need to have all that stuff?

Quote :

"I don't really need two pickups."

Why do you need one?

Quote :

" the house was a foreclosure, too, which I still managed to get for nearly 5% under the list price]"

I don't blame buyers of foreclosures for the injustice that was done by the bank. All you did was buy the empty house off the market. It was the bank who kicked that family out onto the streets, stealing their money and giving it to you as a discount. I would, however feel guilty about it at times to live in a house like that. but thats just me.

Quote :

"1) They're moving or otherwise in between homes and can't feasibly drive all their shit around in a u-haul everywhere they go. 2) They are traveling for extended periods of time and have no reason to maintain a permanent dwelling for the time being. 3) You're moving into a smaller place and don't have room for the things you had in your bigger place. Maybe you're trying to figure out what to do with them, how to sell them, whatever, or maybe you just think your situation will be temporary."

These represent a small percentage of storage units.

Quote :

""Oh, you need somewhere to put your precious car while you're at work. That parking deck downtown could house a thousand homeless!""

This is different because the ability of people to get to and from work is a necessity. Storage units are not. I do indeed favor carpooling, public transportation and living near work. All which are things that would require the reconstruction of America and tons of taxes raised for adequate public transportation.

Quote :

"And the fact that self-storage places employ people."

So do apartment complexes.

Quote :

" And the fact that whenever you buy something, you are helping to keep an entire chain of people employed "

I never suggested less things be bought. If anything, my suggestions would lead to more things being bought.

I'm saying to hold on to stuff just so other people can't have it. If you have to put it in storage then you obviously don't want it or need it. You're simply holding it because it has value.

I'm only suggesting the distribution of good ownership change. Not the amount of goods.

8/19/2010 7:00:47 PM

Quote :

"What makes you feel like you need to have all that stuff?"

Need has nothing to do with it. It's pretty obviously simply a matter of "want."

Hell, half of it is because I've worked my tits off and put away some money, spent some time living an austere existence (which has cemented further that "needs" are really not much at all) and spending almost nothing--and thus accumulating more wealth, and save/invest all I need to live very well in retirement...at some point, it's a matter of "Well, a 20-year old Honda Civic hatch would work just fine, but the money I'd save would just sit in the bank, and it isn't doing me any good unless I spend it, whether I spend it now, spend it later, or give it to my daughter when I die so she can spend it."

I could give it away, but I already give away plenty in taxes...plus a sports car in the garage still has resale value, so if I REALLY hit hard times, I could sell it and not really lose anything. Money given away is simply gone.

If I was interested in living a minimalist existence, I wouldn't be giving money away or letting it pile up to ludicrous amounts in savings and investments...I'd go get some skate job working half the time (or less) and exerting a tenth of the effort as I do now, and I'd take it easy.

Quote :

"Why do you need one?"

I can't carry anything in my 2-seat sports car or on my motorcycles, and they won't tow my trailer (which I used to move across the country) or my waverunner.

now, of course, I could just not have any of that and drive an '84 diesel VW Rabbit, converted to biodiesel and running on strained french fry grease...but like I said, need has nothing to do with it.

Quote :

"I don't blame buyers of foreclosures for the injustice that was done by the bank."

The bank didn't do shit. In this case, there was no family to kick out--it was a new house, built by a builder who couldn't sell it before he went bankrupt due to outbuilding the market. The only entity to get screwed WAS the bank, because the builder was irresponsible, and when his luck ran out, it was easier to just leave the bank holding the bag.

but regardless, even if a family had lived in it, no banker forced them to live beyond their means and get into an irrecoverable financial situation.

Quote :

"I'm saying to hold on to stuff just so other people can't have it. If you have to put it in storage then you obviously don't want it or need it. You're simply holding it because it has value. I'm only suggesting the distribution of good ownership change. Not the amount of goods."

1. Oh, then I'm not your problem. I use all my stuff, except for when I'm overseas waging war.

2. Nobody holds on to stuff just "so other people can't have it." They do hold on to it because it has value, but what do you want them to do? Give it away? That's fine for old clothes and stuff, but it's retarded if it's something with any significant resale value (unless you are extremely wealthy and feeling charitable). If they sell it, I don't see how that eases the plight of anyone, so what difference does it make, even by your metrics?

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 7:29 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 7:30 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 7:32 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2010 7:17:06 PM

Quote :

"Then you are a selfish person and a cancer to society."

Let me rephrase: I wouldn't leech off of anyone...I'd provide for myself, but I'd do the bare minimum if I wasn't going to "get ahead", regardless.

and of course I'm selfish. pretty much everyone is selfish.

8/19/2010 7:18:33 PM

Quote :

"Then you are a selfish person and a cancer to society."

8/19/2010 7:19:53 PM

mambagrill = God? They have that same whiney holier than thou attitude about the stupidest of shit?

8/19/2010 7:23:39 PM

mambagrl trolls harder

8/19/2010 7:24:39 PM

Quote :

"stealing their money"

What? If a house or anything else gets foreclosed upon, it's because someone couldn't pay the mortgage/loan. In other words, it's not truly their house to begin with, and not their money (you know, hence the term "borrow").

Occasionally it's bad luck. More often than not, it's financially reckless behavior. The borrower simply stops paying (and probably lives there for free for a while). The lender takes the financial beating.

The borrower gets his lifestyle yanked back into accordance with his means (which the bank probably stupidly enabled him to live beyond, but they pay the piper for that).

It's mostly a case of people getting what they deserve, with some instances of people taking advantage of bankruptcy laws and screwing their lenders. Maybe there is a tiny minority of borrowers getting taken advantage of, but in my view, that's the tiniest fraction.

8/19/2010 7:41:42 PM

Quote :

"Need has nothing to do with it. It's pretty obviously simply a matter of "want." "

Maybe DESERVE is the word I should have used.

Quote :

"I could give it away, but I already give away plenty in taxes.."

The taxes you pay is not "giving money away" it is a fee you owe for living in this country and using/benefiting from our infrastructure.

Quote :

"I can't carry anything in my 2-seat sports car or on my motorcycles, and they won't tow my trailer (which I used to move across the country) or my waverunner."

For how seldom you usie these things you would be better off renting moviers. If you need to move things often, then you should just own a truck instead of a sports car. Under any circumstances, an individual should own no more than 2 vehicles and thats being very lenient.

Quote :

"but regardless, even if a family had lived in it, no banker forced them to live beyond their means and get into an irrecoverable financial situation."

said banker had no problem taking their downpayment and getting them in the house. Also the banker wasn't forced to put them out either. Its all about greed.

Quote :

" Oh, then I'm not your problem. I use all my stuff, "

Theres no way you can drive more than one vehicle at a time. Specialty vehicles can be rented at the rare occasion you want to use it.

Quote :

" If they sell it, I don't see how that eases the plight of anyone, so what difference does it make, even by your metrics? "

If they sell it, money is not being allocated to its storagee. Imagine if everyone sold their stuff in storage and donated their monthly storage payments.

Quote :

"and of course I'm selfish. pretty much everyone is selfish."

Thats where you're wrong. Humanity is good overall. I don't expect a selfish person to see humanity as not being selfish naturally. That would require you to believe you were evil at the core.

8/19/2010 7:42:39 PM

Quote :

"Humanity is good overall."

Rofl. You know how I know you're a fucking idiot?

8/19/2010 7:45:51 PM

Quote :

"What? If a house or anything else gets foreclosed upon, it's because someone couldn't pay the mortgage/loan. In other words, it's not truly their house to begin with, and not their money (you know, hence the term "borrow")"

Have you ever heard of equity?

If I borrow 400,000 from a bank and buy a house and pay that bank 300,000 over a 2 year period. I could go 3 months without making a payment at the point that bank would take the house and sell it for 350,000 (assuming it stayed the same value)

The bank just got 650,000 for a house they paid 400,000 for because they have 250,000 of my dollars (minus interest). This happens on a smaller scale everyday. The bank was being paid interest loyally by borrower for a long period of time and the bank jumps on foreclosure after a few months default. Pure greed.

Rarely will a bank try to work out a deal under normal circumstances (they are doing it now under pressure from the economy, bailouts government, etc.)

8/19/2010 7:48:56 PM

I will say that I would've spent more by just buying a new Honda Civic than I have tied up in my entire garage and driveway...but that's out of necessity, not because I wouldn't have newer, nicer stuff if I could afford it.

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 8:04 PM. Reason : and, as a citizen of the world, i have nothing in mini-storage]

8/19/2010 8:01:24 PM

I agree with the idea that humans tend to hoard too many "things" but I won't go so far as to point a finger and tell someone that they have "too much". People are rather unique from other creatures in that we need to compile items either for survival, comfort, status, etc. If you think about it our possessions aren't so much owned by us but rather can become our chains. We feel compelled to watch tv or be online to stay informed or connected. I do, however, encourage folks to be cognizant of material barriers that they place in their lives that may hinder or prohibit healthy social interactions or more naturally fulfilling activities. I will refrain for now from going into the sustainability aspect of our consumerism mentality.

8/19/2010 8:08:23 PM

I will agree with pretty much all of that.

i have lived well below my means for years at home, and have lived in a converted shipping container in Iraq, essentially a giant house-trailer (but with lots of apartment-style rooms, though the bathrooms/showers were 200m away in a separate facility) in Qatar, and a plywood shack in Afghanistan...and plenty of deployed military guys (not to mention residents of 3rd-world countries) have had it rougher than me.

I've never been one to need a bunch of brand new clothes or expensive stuff, anyway. I could be happy in an apartment with a $5000 car...there's stuff a lot more important than money, and a lot of people, like you say, are absolute slaves to their possessions (or the pursuit of them).

Really, I only have a house because my electric guitars aren't really suited for apartment living, and with the market so depressed when I bought, I felt like it was smarter financially to buy, especially on a really good deal. If it weren't for resale value, I'd have a very small (like 800 sq ft) house and a big detached garage/shop for all of my toys/hobbies...or hell, just live in a 5-6 car garage/shop with a finished apartment/loft space for me and my daughter. The problem is that I'd never be able to resell it, haha, and neither would I be likely to find any woman inclined to live in it with me.

...but if I want to fly to Amsterdam and spend cash on hookers and blow, that's my business. While I agree with everything you said, I don't believe that I am wrong for living at a standard well above what would really be quite acceptable, and I take GREAT issue with the idea that anyone should be restricted from living at whatever standard they can afford and choose to.



[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 8:25 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 8:26 PM. Reason : also take issue with those fucking things up by living above their means, trying to keep up w/ jones]

8/19/2010 8:11:30 PM

Quote :

"If I borrow 400,000 from a bank and buy a house and pay that bank 300,000 over a 2 year period. I could go 3 months without making a payment at the point that bank would take the house and sell it for 350,000 (assuming it stayed the same value) "

So what you're advocating is that people who signed their name to a contract should not be bound to a contract? Your example is just really fucking hyperbolic and about 0% chance of being realistic. Come up with some better examples of EVIL BANKS rather than some bullshit you made up.

Here, I have one

I could go to a bank tomorrow, like about my income, put 0% down on a home I had no intention of making a payment on, and then wait on the bank to take their year plus to foreclose on me. That fucking evil bank, how dare they.

8/19/2010 8:38:24 PM

no such thing. if you want it and can afford it, then go for it.

I believe in freedom.

8/19/2010 8:40:29 PM

^

8/19/2010 9:05:32 PM

You know, if you just ignore mambagrl, it will go away eventually.

8/19/2010 9:15:52 PM

i'm not sure about that, though that's definitely no reason not to ignore her.

if it had been someone else's thread on a subject worth discussing, i would've ignored her...in this case, i figured i'd play.


anyway,

8/19/2010 9:33:23 PM

i too, have lots of shit.

suck it, commie.

8/19/2010 10:09:59 PM

Quote :

"I'm only suggesting the distribution of good ownership change. Not the amount of goods."

Shouldn't mambagrl be happy for Duke? He's being paid by her ideal system for allocating resources.



[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 10:22 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2010 10:20:35 PM

Quote :

"Maybe DESERVE is the word I should have used."

Deserve's got nothin' to do with it.

8/19/2010 10:31:30 PM

I can only imagine how much more spartan my existence will be after coming back from living out of a back pack for 6 months hiking the Appalachian Trail. I have read that it certainly changes your perspective on things you feel you "need".

8/19/2010 10:33:10 PM

mambagrl, how would you change things? It is not the case that if Americans wanted less then others would have more. While many people enjoy their work, the vast majority of productive effort was expended for the sole purpose of consumption. If people were prevented from consumption, they would quickly give up on production.

I guess you could be like the Soviet Union and make depriving society of your labors a crime punishable by death. Barring that, all the poor people in the world would be deprived of our productivity and they would get far less in exchange for their own efforts.

8/19/2010 10:57:00 PM

Quote :

"Then you are a selfish person and a cancer to society."

Thank God Duke is "selfish". We're all paying him to fly dangerous aircraft into dangerous situations in order to protect our asses. I don't know about you, but I couldn't even find the door on a jet fighter..let alone blow an enemy out of the air.

Now I'm sure there is some patriotism swelling in his bosom, but he is also doing this job in order to improve his life and that of his family's. You can't hold self-interest against someone.

The people who built the computer Mambagrl is typing her complaints on didn't do it because of any selfless love for her. They did it to make the money they needed to live and enjoy life.

8/19/2010 11:24:08 PM

I've never hiked the Trail for months on end, but from my own experiences with living a much more spartan lifestyle than normal (for a middle-class American), I'll say that it will change your perspective on what you "need".

You really "need" very, very little. You can even satisfy a significant number of "wants" without having all that much. If you're like me, you'll be amazed at how content you are with pretty minimal stuff. I mean, I'm living in a plywood shack right now with 2 other dudes, eating 2 meals (sometimes 3) at a basic chow hall, and I've been rocketed/mortared 3x this week. I have my laptop (with mediocre internet that I'm paying $100/month for) and an acoustic guitar, and a stack of books. We have a mini-fridge with cold water in our shack, and we have a tent outside with hot showers in it, and a porta-john beside that. Our shack has a couple of fluorescent lights, but we pretty much never turn them on, because we all work/sleep different hours (I just have a small lamp in my "room", which is separated by a couple sheets of plywood and a curtain that go up to about 6' high. I work 7 days/week, and it's about a mile walk from our shack.

By middle-class American standards, that's a pretty sucky existance.

The 6 month mark will be coming up in just over 6 weeks, and I'll be coming home. There are plenty of things I miss back home and look forward to when I get back there, but really, I could stay right here and be pretty content for a good while longer. Flying combat missions is satisfying (how can you not love dead Taliban), and I get paid a little extra (and spend pretty much nothing) while I'm here--I'd probably volunteer to stay longer if it weren't for my daughter back home and the celibacy that goes along with deployment.

...and yes, I think that living like that changes your perspective at least little on what you need (and I mean what you need to be happy/content, not simply subsist). Part of me wants to sell my S2000 when I get home and replace it with a $2500 used Miata, because I'd still have a blast with that, for a fraction of what I paid for the Honda (I thought about doing this a few times before I left). What I'll probably do as soon as it's clear that I won't be getting deployed again, though, is sell the S2000 and buy a $25,000 used Porsche 911...because, well, why not? I think I have a pretty good perspective on what I need, but my wants are a different matter, haha. Part of me feels wasteful, that I'm squandering money on something like that, but then I remind myself that the whole point of money is to buy stuff, and I've worked extremely hard and gone without a lot of stuff for years, so whatever...not everyone gets to drive a Porsche every day, and I don't want to get old and kick myself for all the things I wish I'd done.

It's like I said before...I have a sports car, 2 trucks, and 2 motorcycles because I might as well...not because I feel any need for them. I could be pretty damned happy with, say, a decent mid-90s 240sx and an apartment to live in, as long as I never had to worry about making ends meet.

I guess what I'm trying to say--because I've thought about this subject numerous times (due to the disparity of going back and forth between living in relatively spartan conditions in combat zones, living out of hotel rooms in Yuma, and living in my house in coastal NC with more toys and creature comforts than I know what to do with--though it's really a "middle-middle class" house at most, and I only actually have $15-20k tied up in the cars and bikes)--is that you can never "have too much". You can be enslaved by possessions and/or the pursuit thereof, but that can happen whether you have jack shit or live like a baller, and THAT'S where the problem lies--not in any particular amount of "stuff".

Of course, none of that is what mambagrl is talking about...she wants the whole world to live as a collective in a uniformly meager existance. I'm really referring to other people in the thread like HockeyRoman.

[Edited on August 19, 2010 at 11:29 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2010 11:24:14 PM

Is this thread a joke?

Admin should send it to the chit-chat

8/19/2010 11:48:17 PM

Quote :

"These represent a small percentage of storage units. "

do you have any statistics to back up this claim? of course not. troll on, 18 wheeeeeeeeeeeler, troll on

8/20/2010 12:41:05 AM

"having too much" is when you cant move after eating

see: thanksgiving, xmas dinner, other large meals


[Edited on August 20, 2010 at 12:43 AM. Reason : d]

8/20/2010 12:43:06 AM

To be fair, once some things fall into place in a few years I intend to build my sustainable home (http://www.enertia.com/) so the money saved from not buying temporary knick-knacks now will go into building my dream home. I am not against spending money, I am not Clark Howard, I just have priorities.

8/20/2010 1:10:24 AM

This is just another idiotic thread where she tries to make us all realize that anyone with the least bit of money is evil.

8/20/2010 11:19:37 PM

Quote :

"What is having "too much"?"

I'll let you know when I get there.

8/20/2010 11:23:58 PM

Quote :

"Thank God Duke is "selfish". We're all paying him to fly dangerous aircraft into dangerous situations in order to protect our asses. I don't know about you, but I couldn't even find the door on a jet fighter..let alone blow an enemy out of the air. "

Protect our asses from what? I wasn't even going to go there but don't get me started on how stupid/inhumane/costly/immoral/reputation-ruining/wasteful these wars are. Thats not the troops fault though and I don't blame them for anything. I certainly don't worship them either like the neocons

Quote :

"Now I'm sure there is some patriotism swelling in his bosom, but he is also doing this job in order to improve his life and that of his family's. You can't hold self-interest against someone. "

Thats fine. Doing a job to better your family is fine. but saying you wouldn't do your job as well if you couldnt have 7 vehicles is selfish.

Quote :

"and I only actually have $15-20k tied up in the cars and bikes)--is that you can never "have too much". You can be enslaved by possessions and/or the pursuit thereof, but that can happen whether you have jack shit or live like a baller, and THAT'S where the problem lies--not in any particular amount of "stuff"."

its not the cost of things im talking about here. im talking about things going unused. things that many need and dont have going unused just so you can retain ownership of multiples of them.

Quote :

"Of course, none of that is what mambagrl is talking about...she wants the whole world to live as a collective in a uniformly meager existance. I'm really referring to other people in the thread like HockeyRoman."

Thats not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying people just shouldnt have things they aren't using stored away when other people could be getting needed use out of the same very goods. Also the money they are spending to house said goods could be going to the less fortunate as well. This doesn't change quality of life at all of the people who wouldnt be storing items.

Quote :

" This is just another idiotic thread where she tries to make us all realize that anyone with the least bit of money is evil."

Again, I have not (in this thread) said having money is evil. All I have said is having an apartment to store your junk is evil. Under my suggestions, these people would have the same amount of money or maybe a lot more money and the whole worldwould be better off.

I've suggested they

1.sell or give away the stuff they aren't using
2. take the money they would've been paying storage rent with and pay homelesss rent with it or give it to the underprivileged.

In no way does any of that change the amount of money they have or their quality of life.

[Edited on August 21, 2010 at 12:31 AM. Reason : neocons worship military]

8/21/2010 12:28:44 AM

Quote :

"saying you wouldn't do your job as well if you couldnt have 7 vehicles is selfish."

Due to this job's fundamental nature, I would do it just as well...

but I also wouldn't stay in it very long. I'd go get a minimally demanding job and relax.

Quote :

"its not the cost of things im talking about here."

Quote :

"Also the money they are spending to house said goods could be going to the less fortunate as well. "

Quote :

"I've suggested they 1.sell or give away the stuff they aren't using 2. take the money they would've been paying storage rent with and pay homelesss rent with it or give it to the underprivileged. In no way does any of that change the amount of money they have or their quality of life."

hahahaha


none of that makes any sense whatsover. I mean, that is the most absurd, contradictory, and logic-defying succession of thoughts that I believe I've ever seen in this forum, and that is a strong statement.



additionally, if I can only have one car, my car is a Porsche 911 Turbo. Fast, has backseats, and AWD...and I will have even less money that I could give to other people, not that I would to begin with.

[Edited on August 21, 2010 at 12:51 AM. Reason : it is more cost effecient for me to have multiple, specialized vehicles, to do the things I want.]

8/21/2010 12:50:19 AM

Yes, it is better to sell equipment than for it to sit unused. But that is not the case here, he uses all seven cars occasionally and clearly values them more than the money he could get for them. All were paid for, he harmed no one else by collecting them. Keep in mind that if he and everyone else like him did not like possessing such artifacts, then they would not have been made. We are all lazy and selfish, if you succeed in convincing us to want less stuff, then society would just produce less stuff, all of us opting instead for shorter hours and more vacation. We can always watch more TV.

8/21/2010 2:03:16 AM

obviously the bank stole some family's money, I mean don't people have a God-given Constitutional right for a place to live

8/21/2010 2:25:06 AM

Does she really not know what storage sheds are for?


It's temporary room to store your belongings while you transition to a new house.
It's temporary room to store your property while you actively obtain business equipment before you have a place of business.
It's temporary space for businesses to store backup machinery and goods.



Storage sheds are a very useful tool in society. They have nothing to do with "having too much"

8/21/2010 4:07:17 AM

While mambagrl and theDuke866 may not fully represent either extreme, we should all agree that extreme selfishness and extreme selflessness should be avoided.

[Edited on August 21, 2010 at 8:25 AM. Reason : ]

8/21/2010 8:19:18 AM

No, the problem is people who don't work for a living, leech off the taxpayers and those who enable said leeching.

People who have a job and buy goods drive our economy. If people like him stop buying things they "don't need" the economic shit would hit the fan.

This is probably the stupidest thread in the history of TSB.

8/21/2010 8:30:34 AM

^^^ My folks have been renting one out for 6+ years to house their shit.

It actually started out as temp storage for my Dad when he moved out of his place but when he remarried and merged their stuff they ended up keeping it. The funny thing is, they probably have enough room in the attics of their place to store it all.

8/21/2010 9:52:26 AM

Quote :

"People who have a job and buy goods drive our economy."

Eh depends on the job. Plenty of people are hooked up with unproductive office jobs that could easily be done by a sophisticated enough AI script

8/21/2010 10:04:04 AM

because that is what we really need...more unemployment.

I dont care what kind of job a person has....any person who works for a living doing no matter what menial task is deserving of respect.

8/21/2010 10:12:22 AM

lol

8/21/2010 10:17:32 AM

Quote :

"Bernstein: There's a lot of statues in Europe you haven't bought yet. Charles Foster Kane: You can't blame me. They've been making statues for some two thousand years, and I've only been collecting for five. "

8/21/2010 11:03:55 AM